Karnataka High Court Weekly Round-Up: June 29 - July 06, 2025

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 221 to Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 225.Nominal Index: Sriramulu AND U Ravi Rao & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 221Rachappa Satish Kumar & ANR AND M/s Eaglesight Media Private Limited & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 222.B S Gupta AND The Commissioner & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 223Devibai AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 224Ranjith Balkrishnan AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 225Judgments/OrdersCaretaker Of Property Obliged To Handover Possession To Owners On Demand, Cannot Seek Injunction Against Them: Karnataka High CourtCase Title: Sriramulu AND U Ravi Rao & OthersCase No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3281 OF 2025Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 221The Karnataka High Court has said that a caretaker of the property continues in possession of the property only on behalf of the owners and cannot be held to have acquired any interest in the property and is under an obligation to handover possession to the defendants on demand.Justice C M Poonacha held thus while dismissing an appeal filed by one Sriramulu who had challenged the order of the trial court rejecting his application seeking a temporary injunction against the defendants from interfering in his possession and also restrain them from alienating the suit property.The bench said “The Trial Court having appreciated the relevant factual matrix and having rejected the application filed for injunction by the plaintiff, the appellant has failed in demonstrating that the said order is in any manner erroneous and liable to be interfered with by this Court in the present appeal.”Courts Can't Grant Temporary Injunction Against Entity Not Made Party To Suit: Karnataka High Court Relief To News Channel Btv KannadaCase Title: Rachappa Satish Kumar & ANR AND M/s Eaglesight Media Private Limited & OthersCase No: WRIT PETITION No.13365 OF 2025Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 222.The Karnataka High Court has said that orders of temporary injunctions can be granted only against those who are made defendants in the suit and restraining orders against third parties who are not made parties to the suit cannot be granted.Justice M Nagaprasanna held thus while allowing a petition filed by journalist Rachappa Sathish Kumar and M/s Btv Kannada Private Limited who had challenged an ex-parte temporary injunction order passed by the City Civil and Sessions Court whereby it directed blocking of Btv Kannada's social media page in April this year by all social media platforms.Ad Tax Cannot Be Imposed On Educational Institutions For Putting Up Non-Commercial Signages On Their Property: Karnataka High CourtCase Title: B S Gupta AND The Commissioner & ANRCase No: WRIT PETITION NO. 46688 OF 2017Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 223The Karnataka High Court has set aside an advertisement tax demand notice issued by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) to an educational institution for displaying non-commercial signage and boards on its own property.Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum held thus while allowing the petition filed by BS Gupta, Secretary of Gupta Education Trust, who had challenged the legality/validity of the order issued by BBMP, under Section 134 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976.The court said “This Court is of the view that power to levy advertisement tax under Section 134 of the Act must be strictly confined to displays that fall within the statutory definition of advertisement under the above said section, which necessitates a commercial or promotional character. The signage in question or hoardings being a non-commercial institutional identifier does not meet this threshold.”S.483(3) BNSS | High Court Can't Cancel Bail Granted By Sessions Court In Absence Of Breach Of Conditions: Karnataka HCCase Title: Devibai AND State of Karnataka & ANRCase No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200940 OF 2025Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 224The Karnataka High court has said that in absence of any violation of bail conditions, the order of Sessions Court granting bail to an accused cannot be sought to be cancelled before the High Court by filing an application under Section 483(3) of BNSS, 2023.A Single judge, Justice V Srishananda held thus while dismissing the petition filed by the mother of a rape victim, challenging grant of bail to the accused charged under provisions of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO). It was her case that grant of bail for such a serious offence had resulted in miscarriage of justice.The court said “Even though concurrent powers vested in this Court along with the Special Court or the Sessions Court to grant or cancel the bail, the application seeking cancellation of bail shall not be construed as if it is an appeal over the order of grant of bail. Even in BNSS, 2023, no such provision is carved out by the legislature so as to vest the power of either revision or appeal over the discretionary order of grant of bail.”Karnataka High Court Quashes Man's Sexual Assault Complaint...

Karnataka High Court Weekly Round-Up: June 29 - July 06, 2025

Mustafa Plumber

Tags